RE: Separate LCUP cookie vs replication - was RE: Comments on LCU P draft - opaque cookie
Christopher Apple <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>-----Original Message----- >From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 12:03 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Christopher Apple; 'Richard Huber'; [email protected]; >[email protected] >Subject: Re: Separate LCUP cookie vs replication - was RE: >Comments on >LCUP draft - opaque cookie > > >At 12:55 PM 6/12/2001, John Strassner wrote: >>if you agree that the format of the cookie isn't the real >issue, then >>let's please separate that into two discussions: >> >> 1) the format of the cookie >> 2) whether LCUP will support replicated environments > >In the absence of support for replicated environments, >is there a reason to specify the format of the cookie? > >Kurt > See my posting related to interoperability concerns that don't necessarily have anything to do with a replicated environment: http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01067.html The general answer to your question is that not specifying at least one standards-track cookie format means that LCUP interoperability will only be achieved if a few implementers decide to cooperate to make it happen. Even *if* that happens, it may or may not last beyond version 1.0 of the implementations themselves... As a WG Co-Chair, that's a situation I can't justify letting us get into without some very compelling reasons. So far, I've heard no arguments that I consider compelling enough to outweigh the risk to interoperability that an opaque cookie poses. I am definitely OK with the approach of specifying a high-level cookie structure of "<OID>-<payload>" in the LCUP spec itself and dealing with the issue of publishing one or more OIDs with associated payload syntaxes that are standards track. This approach is outlined here: http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01079.html Chris Apple Program Manager - Directory Services United Messaging Inc. <http://www.unitedmessaging.com> <mailto:[email protected]> (V) 610-425-2860
Chris Apple (E-mail).vcf
(text/x-vcard, 498 B)
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Apple;Chris FN:Chris Apple (E-mail) ORG:UMI TITLE:Program Manager TEL;WORK;VOICE:(610) 425-2860 TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850 TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241 TEL;WORK;FAX:(610) 425-6501 ADR;WORK:;;1161 McDermott Drive;West Chester;Pa.;19380;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1161 McDermott Drive=0D=0AWest Chester, Pa. 19380=0D=0AUnited States of Amer= ica EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email protected] REV:20010621T205341Z END:VCARD
smime.p7s
(application/x-pkcs7-signature, 2.2 KB) - not displayed